Creative destruction in science

Drawing on the concept of a gale of creative destruction in a capitalistic economy, we argue that initiatives to assess the robustness of findings in the organizational literature should aim to simultaneously test competing ideas operating in the same theoretical space. In other words, replication efforts should seek not just to support or question the original findings, but also to replace them with revised, stronger theories with greater explanatory power. Achieving this will typically require adding new measures, conditions, and subject populations to research designs, in order to carry out conceptual tests of multiple theories in addition to directly replicating the original findings. To illustrate the value of the creative destruction approach for theory pruning in organizational scholarship, we describe recent replication initiatives re-examining culture and work morality, working parents\u2019 reasoning about day care options, and gender discrimination in hiring decisions. Significance statement It is becoming increasingly clear that many, if not most, published research findings across scientific fields are not readily replicable when the same method is repeated. Although extremely valuable, failed replications risk leaving a theoretical void\u2014 reducing confidence the original theoretical prediction is true, but not replacing it with positive evidence in favor of an alternative theory. We introduce the creative destruction approach to replication, which combines theory pruning methods from the field of management with emerging best practices from the open science movement, with the aim of making replications as generative as possible. In effect, we advocate for a Replication 2.0 movement in which the goal shifts from checking on the reliability of past findings to actively engaging in competitive theory testing and theory building. Scientific transparency statement The materials, code, and data for this article are posted publicly on the Open Science Framework, with links provided in the article

Spannungsabbau und Vertrauensaufbau

"Dauernder Friede kann nicht durch Drohungen, sondern nur durch den ehrlichen Versuch vorbereitet werden, gegenseitiges Vertrauen herzustellen." Albert Einsteins Zitat betont die wichtige Rolle des Vertrauens für die Friedensbildung. Vor allem in der Folge von Gewaltkonflikten tun sich die beteiligten Gruppen schwer einander zu vertrauen. Dieses Kapitel beschäftigt sich mit der Frage, wie Konflikte hinreichend weit deeskaliert werden können, um einen behutsamen Vertrauensaufbau zwischen Konfliktgruppen zu ermöglichen. Dafür stellen wir zunächst zwei Arten von Spannungsabbau vor: zum einen die "Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension-Reduction" GRIT-Strategie, die über schrittweise entgegenkommende und transparente Initiativen Spannungen zwischen Konfliktgruppen abbauen soll. Zum anderen führen wir ein niedrigschwelliges, instrumentell-pragmatisches Vertrauenskonzept ein. Haben Gruppen überwiegend negative Erwartungen bezüglich der Intentionen und des Verhaltens anderer Gruppen, ist es unrealistisch, freundschaftliche Beziehungen zu erwarten. Auf der Grundlage von Nutzenerwägungen und Risikokontrolle können sich instrumentell-pragmatisches Vertrauen entwickeln und erste Annäherungen stattfinden. Anschließend geht es um den Vertrauensaufbau, der sich qualitativ vom Spannungsabbau unterscheidet: Vertrauensaufbau erfordert eine Wandlung von negativen Erwartungen bezüglich der Intentionen und des Verhaltens der anderen Seite zu positiven Erwartungen und der Akzeptanz des Risikos, Nachteile zu erleiden. Dies bedeutet eine wissenschaftliche und praktische Herausforderung: Wie können diese Erwartungen gezielt verändert und Vertrauen aufgebaut werden? Vertrauen ist als subjektives, flüchtiges Konzept schwer zu fassen und ein Vertrauensaufbau langwierig und fragil. Vertrauen ist multidimensional und in verschiedenen Kontexten werden unterschiedliche Vertrauensdimensionen relevant, die gezielt aufgebaut werden können. Um das Problem der Multidimensionalität zu adressieren, schlagen wir das "Intergroup-Trust Modell" (IGT-Modell) vor, das speziell für Gruppenkonflikte entwickelt wurde. Mit fünf Vertrauensdimensionen bietet es ein umfassendes und zugleich überschaubares Konzept, auf dem vertrauensbildende Interventionen aufgebaut werden können. Dritt- und Konfliktparteien haben oft intuitive Ideen, wie Vertrauen geschaffen werden kann. Mit dem IGT-Modell können diese Ideen systematisch strukturiert, evaluiert und korrigiert werden. Wir beabsichtigen mit unserem Kapitel, ein Bewusstsein dafür zu schaffen, was Vertrauensaufbau zu einem schwierigen Prozess macht, und zugleich Ansatzpunkte für ihre Bewältigung zu bieten

The Long Road From Cold War to Warm Peace: Building Shared Collective Memory Through Trust

Conflict does not end when violence ceases. Societies faced with overcoming conflict are confronted with many obstacles in the long process of reconciliation as they move from cold war to warm peace. They have to bridge the divide of disparate collective memory while overcoming deep-rooted inter-group distrust. Disparate collective memories fuel the conflict by preserving hatred and distrust. We suggest that one step towards warm peace is the establishment of an overarching superordinate group memory, or Shared Collective Memory. Our paper introduces a theoretical reconciliation model that proposes three incremental reconciliation cycles to build a Shared Collective Memory through the parallel development of intergroup trust. It combines and expands on the existing conceptualizations of trust and of collective memory and provides a framework for future empirical research

Intergroup contact and social change: an integrated contact-collective action model

Previous research has shown that positive intergroup con-tact among disadvantaged group members may predict a so-called sedative effect according to which positive con-tact is associated with reduced support for social change. Conversely, positive contact is associated with increased support for social change toward equality among advantaged group members. This raises the important question of under which circumstances intergroup contact can encourage support for social change among both disadvantaged and advantaged groups. In this theoretical article, we tackle this question by introducing a new Integrated Contact-Collective Action Model (ICCAM). We first provide an up-to-date review of how intergroup contact may promote or hinder social change for both disadvantaged and advantaged groups. We, then, use ICCAM to examine when the many forms of intergroup contact promote or hinder sup-port for social change, proposing the existence of two different paths for disadvantaged and advantaged group members. Finally, we discuss the implications of the model for social intervention and make policy recommendations stemming from a review of available evidence

Intergroup contact and social change: an integrated contact-collective action model

Previous research has shown that positive intergroup con-tact among disadvantaged group members may predict a so-called sedative effect according to which positive con-tact is associated with reduced support for social change. Conversely, positive contact is associated with increased support for social change toward equality among advantaged group members. This raises the important question of under which circumstances intergroup contact can encourage support for social change among both disadvantaged and advantaged groups. In this theoretical article, we tackle this question by introducing a new Integrated Contact-Collective Action Model (ICCAM). We first provide an up-to-date review of how intergroup contact may promote or hinder social change for both disadvantaged and advantaged groups. We, then, use ICCAM to examine when the many forms of intergroup contact promote or hinder sup-port for social change, proposing the existence of two different paths for disadvantaged and advantaged group members. Finally, we discuss the implications of the model for social intervention and make policy recommendations stemming from a review of available evidence